I am happy with how the author addressed my comments and I believe that many things have been now clarified in the paper. I recommend publication subject to the very two minor technical corrections indicated below (I am referring to pages and lines of the newest version of the ms):

Pag3, L26-27: these lines are awkward. I suggest to rephrase as "Here, the observational data from a June 2014 oceanographic survey are used...."
Pag15, L5-6: Adjective, either you say "6-hour intervals" (no plural in hourS) or "intervals of 6 hours"

Dear authors,
after succesfully addressing referees' remarks, the paper is improved and accetable for pubblication. Before final acceptance however, you are requested to implement few minor points. Some of them are reqested by one referee, others are listed below (lines refer to the track change revised version):
- pg 2 line 29: I would specify that we are talking on "gravity" waves. So "Activity of surface gravity waves" or, even better, just "sea state conditions"
- first line page 4: I am not sure Sardo-Balearic Sea is a geographical name internationally accepted
- citations of websites (I see roms forum cited several time) should be done according to Copernicus rules
(see http://www.ocean-science.net/Copernicus_Publications_Reference_Types.pdf )
- I assume you've got MFS and MERCATOR data from copernicus marine service. If so, CMEMS should be properly acknowledged
- sec 3.5, pg7 l25: instead of "cloudiness" please use "total cloud cover" and specify whether the shortwave radiation is net or not
- sec 4.2, end of para: using forum discussions to support robustness of the parameter configuration doesn't seem right to me. THis is way too much "grey" literature. The only way to figure out if rx1=21 in your case is causing problems would be to run the model unforced with idealized uniform profile of T,S and analyze spurious currents emerging (something that wasn't done). I would erase the statement from "Namely" to "ROMS run" (i.e., last four lines of section 4.2).
- sec 4.1, pg 10 l12: "that the *selected* parameterization of vertical mixing in ROMS is not adequate for such calm conditions". In fact you have picked up only one, and in the paper you did not use all the parameterizations available (e.g., KPP). In addition, you should state which stability function you have choosen.

A numerical ocean circulation model has been employed to explore the
sensitivity of the forecast skill of mixed-layer properties to the
initial conditions, boundary conditions, and vertical mixing
parameterisations. All forecasts were validated against observations
which were taken in June 2014 to the west of Sardinia.

A numerical ocean circulation model has been employed to explore the
sensitivity of the...